Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Thanks so very much for writing, Doc -- good night, and sleep well!
Good stuff...I've had occasion to use it before...
I'm gone for the night. I'll talk atcha you tomorrow.
As a practical matter, given the ubiquitous nature of DNA (et al) if you had Arcturans using Earth as a Zoo, or a dumping ground for unsuitible "new models", you really would have a hard time differentiating those critters from the ones already here.
It's like the idea that GRAVITY WORKS EVERYWHERE THE SAME ~ in this case, it's LIFE USES THE SAME CHEMISTRY AND PROCESSES EVERYWHERE.
Evos tend to reject the idea that exobiology has any relevance to anything already on Earth. They stick to the "little Earth" idea like the "young earther" crowd stick to their narrow idea of Creation.
I'm sure there's some anti-evolutionists with honor also. This stuff isn't all that easy to understand and their faith is part of their being. They're not going to show up that often typing the results from passes through the creationist/ID algorithm though.
This is proven by the total absence of the infinite variety that would exist if it were not so.
I'm sorry, but you cannot be serious?
That is so wrong in so many ways that it is utterly insane.
Oh for heaven's sake, Coyotemen -- of course I'm going to call my mechanic, George. Do you think I'm stoopid or sumthin'?????
Good night and pleasant dreams, Coyoteman!
"What a laugh, he designed DNA to prevent evolution"
LOL, so random mutations that occur on "his" design do not contribute to evolution? YOU make me laugh.
"Prove me wrong. Explain why the Archaeopteryx is not a transitional. Explain why the sequence of fossils claimed to be transitionals between archaic Artiodactyls and Cetaceans should not be accepted. Perhaps give us a link to the research that based identification of relationships on small similarities while ignoring large differences. Perhaps explain why small similarities, if diagnostic in nature, should not be given more weight than non-diagnostic larger differences?"
My question still goes unanswered. Where are the transitionals between these so called transitionals that would demonstrated definatively that commen decent is real? And, again, my question goes unanswered. Since I am not the one making such claims as this animal become some other animal, then why do you insist I "prove" something I have not claimed. I'm merely asking for you to provide your evidence other than "It is what I say It Is". You evos have become so locked into your conjecture and supplication that you can't see anything outside of the world you've placed yourself in.
Why? Evolution is one of the best supported theories we have.
Should we downgrade it from theory to hypothesis because a very narrow group of religious fundamentalists demand it? Or should we keep it as a theory because that is where scientists, who study the matter, have determined it should be.
At the moment, it's a concept best ignored ~ belief in a center of everything is terribly misleading.
So you say. But you still haven't provided evidence that what you say is true. Cell correction operates on somatic cells. Show me that it also works on germ cells. Then show me it prevents all mutations in germ cells.
editor-surveyor: That is an opinion advanced only by those whose minds are so warped that they can't see the use of modular design by our creator. Why would he not use the same method to do the same job in most of his creatures? Your statement is utterly anti-god at it's foundation.
Please explain the "modular design" that makes people and the other apes incapable of synthesizing ascorbic acid (Vitamin C). The fact is, that if a single base pair were added to your genome, you'd never need vitamin C again. Every thing's present, except that one base pair.
The interesting thing is, the exact same base pair, inserted in the right place in the chimp or gorilla genome, would let them make ascorbic acid.
The standard biology explanation for this state of affairs is obvious.
The ID or creationist explanation ... well, the hypothetical designer could have done a better job of quality control.
I Mean, what exactly is the point of reusing the same defective part in a dozen or more species? It pays to perform unit testing if you're doing modular construction!
Actually, there is another creationist hypothesis:
[Garden of Eden, Adam just 'fessed up]
The Lord: So you like fruit, eh! I'll fix it so you'll have to eat some every day!
< zapp !>
Er, sorry about that Mr. Ape, ...
I am quite serious. I do not like to see "conservatives" leading the fight to destroy scientific inquiry. I have experiences the "conservative" attack on science for over 50 years. I do no like to see self-styled "Conservative Christian" groups (even in Kansas) ally with Harun Yahya. The "left" can attack science well enough on its own, too.
Are you sure that you are not mixing up Steno's comments with Keats'?
Like Newtonism and Copernicasm and the followers of those evil "Physics" and "Astronomy" who should be following the holy precepts of Astrology and Alchemy.
Just forget what I wrote earlier. Thanks.
There, fixed that for you.
Many outside this forum firmly believe that creationism was by intelligent design and that evolution is a result of the same authority. Many inside this forum believe that secondary, public schools should not teach science and some do not believe that the present public school system should even exist. Others firmly believe that relgion is not science and that the two are mutually incompatable.
So many possible motives for the vote. So many interpretations.
The theory of evolution is a science. Misrepresenting the truth is not evidence.
tip o' the 'at
If we can't understand references from 25 years ago, how can we understand them from 2500 years ago?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.